Original: xe5 "If enough soldiers from low strength teams are left over (i.e. not needed to fill out other units in the Battle Group) they are grouped together to form reduced strength teams (4 man ad-hoc / ersatz rifle teams, or 2 man light machine gun teams) that are added to your Forcepool automatically" except that those 'left-overs' would retain their original weapons and be grouped in 2-4 man teams.

Yes! true Ad-hoc/Ersatz teams composed of remnants of maimed teams would be very cool.

I'm going to throw a couple of more wishes here that I may have posted somewhere else:

-Battlemaker editor comparable to CC2/CC3, that is, choose a map, lay out a deploy area and set an amount of points to let players choose their force over all the units available. -In the same spirit, an option to create custom BG's (with custom FP), let us create customized BG's to do user created operations or campaigns. Something like this was available with the tool CCReq for CC5, only that it worked for one battle not a whole operation as it created a save game instead of a true custom battle that ended when the tactical battle finished.

Too late for those maybe, but something to consider for CC:Next ;)

-Track prints on terrain may be doable though, right? or at least a fix to the wooden fence so it can be crushed like the stone fence that turns into debris when a tank goes on top of it.

The map element changes but the graphic doesn't, at least in CC5 and tLD, I don't have CoI/WaR/CCMT/LSA. With stone fences you get both.

-Throwing custom made maps into the map folder and have the Scenario editor recognize them like in CC3 would be cool, this for custom single battles. There would need to be two distinct scenario editors though, one for single battles where you choose whatever map is on the maps folder and one for operations where the Strategic map is available and only the maps used by it are available.

-Soldiers whose team is firing to a target but they can't see the enemy at the moment repositioning themselves to available windows and doors to get LOF would be nice.

I'd like to see the Team Types on the BG Excel page expanded.(Currently set at 40 different types) And have them be able to change per day.

Like to see a True 360 degree arc for Ambush/Defend. Like to see a Command Team have/hold the VL set point. I.E. if Command team is in a house then that's where the VL is,If they relocate then that's where the VL goes. Like to see a wreck displayed for AT Guns. Like to see FX graphics carried over if the Battle is on the same day I.E. Burning/Smoldering,dead bodies

ORIGINAL: Platoon_Michael Like to see a Command Team have/hold the VL set point. I.E. if Command team is in a house then that's where the VL is,If they relocate then that's where the VL goes.

That's an interesting idea. So a command team would basically become a victory location / objective for the enemy? Would need some thought in terms of how the enemy player sees it, as it would be basically giving away where your command team is, but an interesting twist.

I liked the suggestion posted on CCseries about dynamic VL's present on a rts Civil war game, that is the game may present you with normal static VL's but as battle takes place in that map, contested points gain VL status and VL's that don't get contested much disappear over time.

So you got for example a VL set originally on a building but that building in game doesn't get to see much action so its VL starts to fade overtime until it eventually disappears meanwhile a heavily contested little farm house starts to sport a little translucent VL with a random name that gets bigger and more noticeable over time as more casualties occur near it.

So how does the enemy 'capture' the points for the VL/HQ command team? All KIA/Incap? If so that means often the last surviving Pvt on the team becomes the most important soldier on the map. It also will make players more reticent about committing such a valuable asset on the front line and fewer teams would get the benefit of command radius.

I do like the idea of a user-defined HQ/VL location but it doesnt necessarily have to be a team. It could just be a notional concept of a tactical HQ (possessing its own command radius), which, once placed in the deploy phase, would remain immobile during battle. If located in cover it would also be invisible to the enemy until he occupied that location and the game notified him of the capture (the actual HQ troops being presumed to have 'bugged out' prior to the enemy's arrival). In the open the HQ/VL could become visible as a newly dug trench.

re: "...how the enemy player sees it, as it would be basically giving away where your command team is..." - this is already a problem in that eventually all team types are rather easily identified on both the tactical and overview maps.

----------------------------------------------------------

w/r/t VLs in general:

It gets stale fighting for the same fixed VLs ad infinitum. Each map could have a set of ~24 VLs (in addition to its fixed entry/exit VLs). from which the game would select 10-15 to be used any time that map was attacked. The same 10-15 VLs (+ fixed entry/exit VLs) would be used long as the battle continued on that map. In solo play, if the AI is the attacker, fewer VLs would be selected. When the player attacks, more VLs would be selected.

Allow maps to have a strategic value separate from their total VL point value.

VLs that arent being actively garrisoned should display as neutral (ie. distant VLs shouldnt serve as free recon when they change sides)

Whenever possible, dont locate VLs in the open (eg. on a road). There is nothing intrinsically valuable about such a location. It only tilts play balance further in favor of armor and away from the tactically-challenged AI.

Do something about victory conditions. Its bizarre to attack onto a map, demolish the enemy, get the 3 VL Force Morale bonus and still lose the battle.

Given that a map represents an area of many square kilometers on the strat map, supply lines shouldnt get cut just because the enemy occupies a zone around an exit VL somewhere on the map. If a supply line is being traced thru the map, and that side controls any combination of roads between the exit VLs the supply line would use, the supply line should remain open.

If the LSA choice between attacking or moving onto a map is retained - Attacking BGs could get a shallow but broad deploy zone and Moving BGs could get a deep but narrow deploy zone.

Can we have a detailed briefing at the start of a campaign or operation? Explaining your objectives and the victory conditions including ground that I must hold and the time I have for accomplishing this, a detailed info about your available units at the start and reinforcements you have coming in would be nice too.

So how does the enemy 'capture' the points for the VL/HQ command team? All KIA/Incap? If so that means often the last surviving Pvt on the team becomes the most important soldier on the map. It also will make players more reticent about committing such a valuable asset on the front line and fewer teams would get the benefit of command radius.

I think I know what you are saying, but to me "Front Line" means in battle, actively firing. A player should avoid useing Command Teams as "Front Line" troops - I like to keep them at the back of buildings / hedges out of direct LOS but still in command range of the real "Front Line" troops. Still, it's a great idea, to have VL's deterimined by the units' position, instead of moving the units to a pre-determined VL. This would be the biggest change to the tactical game in years....

How about the attacker sets up HIS objectives on the enemy controlled map BEFORE the battle and the defensive side can't see them. They will appear as current VL's only to the attacker on the map and will remain so for the reminder of the OP/Campaign, they can only be set at the very first attacking battle from his side on a map from that OP/Camp.

Quantity of objectives available to place is based on map size, must be placed inside enemy controlled zone, map is internally divided on a grid, can't place two VL's on a same column or line (like sudoku numbers).

Can choose starting entrance shape based on number of squares given to deploy that you can set adjacent one another starting from the entry road VL. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Defending

Likewise the defensive side can choose what the defensive conditions will be. Here there are many ideas, maybe choose from a dropdown menu between various options like 'hold on to map', 'defend x quantity of enemy objectives at the end of battle' (unknown location, remember),'Rout the enemy', 'Kill x number of enemies/vehicles' etc.

Other idea could be placing defensive lines/objectives on map before battle that must be defended. If enemy crosses/takes one then your score diminishes. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Meeting

-Both sides are like attacking and can place their own objectives, this on a map attacked for the first time by both sides -If the map has previously experienced battle, previously VL's set on attack by either side remain, if one side hasn't attacked that map yet then he gets to set his own VL objectives.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

End of battle

At the end of the battle you can only see how well you did based on YOUR set objectives, you can't see how good or how bad the enemy performed, can't see his losses only what you killed and your own losses.

Morale of units is affected now by how good you achieved your objectives.

I second the desire to have a game that is polished upon release. The last CC I purchased Modern Tactics, the one where the crawl animation was broken on medium speed - When I asked about it I was told that I was playing wrong. That I needed to play on fastest speed setting, not medium, which is what I've been using for 10 years.

@Kanov - my mistake...CC3-style partial team refit using Requisition points would be a nice addition. The current method where soldiers from low-strength (<50%) teams being disbanded are used as replacements to fill out empty slots in other teams could be retained, but any additional replacements required should cost Req points if the player chooses to do so.

re: '2 Brens in CC2 teams' - Agree, any game function which randomizes the standard 'cookie-cutter' team rosters to any degree would be welcome. Something along the lines of "If enough soldiers from low strength teams are left over (i.e. not needed to fill out other units in the Battle Group) they are grouped together to form reduced strength teams (4 man ad-hoc / ersatz rifle teams, or 2 man light machine gun teams) that are added to your Forcepool automatically" except that those 'left-overs' would retain their original weapons and be grouped in 2-4 man teams.

re: "Panthers in the Fog will keep the history of all your teams and soldiers, even when you remove them from your active team slots. These teams will also receive individual replacements, but that happens automatically. - Steve McClaire"

Im guessing that teams with any battle history, which reside in the inactive roster, will be the first teams available for selection from their respective team type pools.

I like the sounds of much of that! One of the peripheral things I really enjoy is the tracking of BG attrition during a campaign-the more persistent and understood the effects, the better for me!

I like terrain based VL, based on key terrain on that map, and not necessarily where historical battles took place. I can't recall specifics, but a 'hedgerow corner' that saw a fight in 1944 wouldn't be my ideal VL, I would prefer it to be the military crest of a hill that dominates the map, or a building with excellent observation of the area.

For exit roads (and road intersections in general) I'd like it if control required the surrounding area be taken as well. A huge flag would be unappealing, but if the game could note whether you control the nearby woods, or the corners of the city intersection, that could be cool.

As some people notice for me CC needs improve a lot the replacement system, the old model where when a team lose 50% or more made it dissapear is not very good because you lose veteran soldiers... maybe a pool of "survivors" is interesting, you can use them to create add-hoc units if you dont have enough to create a full squad... think in 3 regular infantry units of 7 soldiers 7x3=21, they lose 12 soldiers, well, you have now 9 survivors, you can decide if create a full regular infantry squad leaving 2 in the pool OR 2 add-hoc units, one of 3 soldiers with a MG and 6 only with ligth weapons...

Other point is the tactical AI for infantry units, many times react bad when they are in close combat.

And talking about future games... maybe over east front for me is more interesting cover the Pacific, i remember Okinawa as one of the best mods for CC5... maybe Guadalcanal where you can play over real terrain in map (as in Bloody Omaha mod) could be fine, i allways think that CC is better when is more center in infantry combats.

There is going to be a new system in Panthers in the Fog where veteran soldiers will be retained, something like you describe. Conversely, new replacement soldiers that arrive to fill out teams will start out as green, rather than the base experience of the team, making it more improtant to preserve those vets.

Is great know it, interesting the replacement system, expect it improve game experience.

Oooo other little feature that could be good is in the soldiers panel (i refer the one you can see in battle when select an unit) add in the left of soldiers name a % value for his xp and/or other for morale??? all extra usefull info in battle is wellcome.

One of the features that I liked in earlier versions of CC, was if you selected a unit in zoomed out mode, the unit would remain selected when you zoom in. And vice versa. Not sure when it was discontinued, but I found it rather handy not having to reselect the unit after zooming in or out. Made for snappier game play in my humble opinion.

I think something along the lines has already been suggested, but I couldnt find it now:

Some sort of Intelligence/chance system (maybe recce flights you can order on the stratmap?) that lets you identify enemy battlegroups. I find it strange how you would exactly know the enemies units down to each soldier. Depending on how good the recce operation was, the reliability of the information might vary. It could be "3 PAnthers" or only "agroup of heavy tanks" -or it could even be a wrong information.

Something else, I dont know if many players wish this or if its easily implementable, but I would love to see a coop mode, like in sharing one battlegroup againt the AI. I havent played modern tactics, but I know you can have more players there than just one on one, so amybe its doable? Dont know if this is something many will be interested in though.

I agree on additional misc sounds in the game. As I recall CC2 had dos barking, birds chirping and even a cow moo every now and then. But more importantly misc sounds could be used to detect troops sneaking ( imagine birds flushed out as troops make their way through a field ). Sounds are critical to the game, even vehicles and soldiers cries in the heat of battle are what have made the CC series my favorite war game series.